Derrida Has Lost Nietzsche's Umbrella: On Philipp Felsch's Book Wie Nietzsche aus der Kälte kam. This essay discusses the story of the critical edition of Nietzsche’s complete works by Giorgio Colli and Mazzino Montinari as presented in Philipp Felsch’s book Wie Nietzsche aus der Kälte kam. The book, which is based on biographical material of the two editors, takes up an important episode in European intellectual history in its political, cultural historical context. However, it often presents a questionable use of (...) these sources. A closer examination of that the same source material would situate the history of the edition and its editors in a different context. Likewise, Felsch’s account of the history of Nietzsche’s reception in France, and his reception in the neighboring countries, lacks nuance and reveals some remarkable examples of misreading. Like in other genres of history, scholars of discourse history and intellectual history need to read sources closely and critically. When we talk of dealing with primary sources, the work that editors have done in commentaries and editions should be taken into account. Finally, I argue that we should not dismiss recent innovations in editing methods as confusing or “vulcano-like,” but we would do well to appreciate the opportunities offered by the digital humanities, both for a professional readership and a wider audience. (shrink)

Since the time of Descartes science has been influenced by the demand for precision and accuracy in research. In the 20th century also humanities began to submit to this demand. The term precision itself has a far-reaching and historically grown semantics. As a consequence of the attempt to answer precisely and irrefutably to scientific questions, achieved knowledge today is only valid for an increasingly narrow range.

Staying in Trouble – some Hyper‐/Hypolinks Commenting on the Future of the History of Science. This essay explores the possible future of the history of science, going through a number of motifs that I hold to be essential in this discussion. I argue that the history of science should continue to rely on narrative techniques that include multiple perspectives and humor. The questionable identity of historians of science, situated between the sciences, whose history we write, and our own methodological toolbox, (...) will remain productive if we consciously deal with the challenges caused by “troubles” (as explained by Donna Haraway) of unclear identity, mixed methods, and perspective changes. All these constitute a chance to co‐write entangled histories and enact entangled politics of science. (shrink)

What's Next? Michael Crichtons und Mikhail Bulgakovs Kritik der Fetischisierung in den Lebenswissenschaften. Dieser Beitrag wurde angeregt durch den Thriller Next (2006) von Michael Crichton. Im Gegensatz zu dessen State of Fear (2004), wo die Behandlung eines aktuellen wissenschaftspolitischen Problems – des Klimawandels – mit einer harschen Kritik am Umgang politischer Aktivisten mit wissenschaftlichen Ergebnissen einhergeht, setzt Next Hoffnungen und Ängste ins Zentrum, die im Zusammenhang mit dem ‚Human Genome Project‘ verhandelt wurden. Crichton stellt hier wissenschaftlich‐ökonomische Verflechtungen dar, vor denen (...) er schon in seinen Romanen zu Jurassic Park (1990) warnte. Hier wird auf die Gefahr der Fetischisierung im Zusammenhang mit utopisch untermalten wissenschaftlich‐technischen Großprojekten und der Phantasie ‚Leben zu machen‘ hingewiesen, und es werden entsprechende Motive und Narrative der,longue‐durée‘ aufgegriffen, z.B. künstliche Menschen, menschliche Hybris und das Außer‐Kontrolle‐Geraten wissenschaftlich‐technischer Großprojekte. Unter der Fragestellung, wie kritische Wissenschaftsreflexion im Medium von Literatur erfolgen kann und was der spezifische Beitrag aus der Wissenschaftsgeschichte wäre, behandelt dieser Essay neben Werken von Michael Crichton (vor allem Next und Lost World, 1997) auch die satirischen Novellen Die verhängnisvollen Eier (1924/1925) und Hundeherz (1926/1968) von Mikhail Bulgakov, da bereits dort die (mögliche) künstliche Hervorbringung von Lebewesen unter der Bedingung eines (versuchten) direkten Zugriffs auf deren Reproduktionsmechanismen fokussiert wurde. Wissenschaftskritik als Gesellschaftskritik zeigt sich hier als Reflexion auf die Grenzen zwischen Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft und auf die Verantwortung der entlang dieser Grenzen agierenden Menschen, aber auch auf strukturelle Gewalt und deren Auswirkungen auf die Verhältnisse zwischen Menschen und Naturdingen sowie unter Menschen.Summary: What's Next? Michael Crichton's and Mikhail Bulgakov's Criticism of Fetishism in the Life Sciences. This paper was first inspired by Michael Crichton's last thriller, Next (2006), which staged hopes and fears triggered by the completion of the Human Genome Project and by the perfection of Polymerase chain reaction techniques, enabling the replication of DNA on a large scale. These developments nourished fantasies about the artificial (re)construction of living beings from DNA. Crichton had already warned of the fetishization of artificially produced living beings in Jurassic Park and in the novels on which the film was based inventing a futuristic scenario where this was happening on a large scale. Here, the topics of hubris and hybrids were center stage. In Next, the fetishization of life is an effect of the growing encroachment of economic actors upon the life sciences. This paper compares Crichton's criticism of techno‐scientific fetishism with Mikhail Bulgakov's critical account of human tinkering with the reproductive organs of humans and non‐humans in his two satirical novels The Fateful Eggs and Dog's Heart. The works of both authors link criticism of science with criticism of society. They focus the borders between science and society and analyze the responsibilities of humans who are acting along those borders. The thrillers and satirical novels illustrate the – often violent – power relations between humans and nature and also among humans. Comparing two authors who wrote nearly a century apart from each other and focussing different social systems will help compare longue‐durée and more specific forms of techno‐scientific fetishism. (shrink)